Talk:Worcester

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus or Oppose is the consensus. Staying as is. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Worcester → Worcester, Worcestershire (and Worcester (disambiguation) → Worcester) — I am surprised that editors would still think that "Worcester" should not be at a disambiguation page, given the readership statistics listed above. Clearly, there is no one primary topic for "Worcester" between Worcester, Worcestershire and Worcester, Massachusetts. The one and only legitimate consideration here is the likelihood that someone searching for "Worcester" seeks a particular article; that is what the naming conventions state:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Pretty much all of the points named at the previous move request were illegitimate; the arguments that Worcester, UK is a county town, has a longer history, or is the origin of Worcestershire sauce are all irrelevant. Similarly, the arguments that Worcester, MA is larger in population, is chartered as a city, or was the site of the first rocket launch are equally invalid. The one and only thing that matters is what article readers are looking for; given that Worcester, MA has over 5,000 more readers than Worcester, UK, it is fairly clear that a vast majority of readers (which would be the requirement for "Worcester" to be located here) are in fact not seeking the city in Worcestershire. A disambiguation page is the optimal solution here. Cheers, Rai•me 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support per nom. -- Rai•me 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons stated above section. The usage figures certainly do not show what Raime claims they do, that "a vast majority of readers are in fact not seeking the city in Worcestershire": the figures for the two articles are the same order of magnitude. The naming conventions for placenames state that for cities in the USA, other than the really important ones (NYC, LA, Boston, etc.) the "city, state" format should be used, while for towns/cities in the United Kingdom, "placename" should be used (where that place is unique). Now, there is only one Worcester in the UK, so having its article at Worcester satisfies that criterion, whilst the various Worcesters in the USA have their articles at Worcester, Massachusetts, etc. On top of that, Worcester, Worcestershire looks silly as an article title: "Worcestershire" means "the county of Worcester", so it would be like saying "Worcester in the county of Worcester", which is ridiculous: the "Worcestershire" part becomes redundant. (This is a different situation from cases like Rochester, Kent and Boston, Lincolnshire.) --RFBailey (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  You seem to fail to understand this: the fact that the numbers are in the same order of magnitude in the first place shows that the UK town is not the unambiguous primary topic; if it were, then it would have many more readers than Worcester, MA. I am not stating that Worcester, MA is the primary topic, only that Worcester, UK is not. You misundertand what I meant by "vast majority"; I did not mean that a vast majority of readers are looking for Worcester, MA, but only that an asbsolute majority of readers are not looking for Worcester, UK, which would be the requirement for "Worcester" to be located here. And teh figures easily show this.

  And no, that is not what the naming conventions state:

  Where possible (emphasis added), articles on places in the United Kingdom should go under [[placename]]. Where disambiguation is needed, a different system exists in each of the home nations.

  The system for England, in cases where disambiguation is needed, is "city, county." Whether or not you feel that "Worcester, Worcestershire" looks "silly" is irrelevant; one could also argue that Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, or "the city of Oklahoma in Oklahoma", looks "silly", but that is also irrelevant; it follows guidelines, and that is what matters. To avoid "silly" titles at the expense of the facilitation or readers' searches is ridiculous. -- Rai•me 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I wasn't claiming either city is the primary topic, just that "Worcester" would be the natural name for the article if no others existed. Second, "Worcester, Worcestershire" is not a likely search term (far less likely than "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" would be, as "city, state" is standard US nomenclature), so I fail to see how that facilitates anything. See also my comment below about the hatnote. --RFBailey (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

By opposing the move, you are stating that Worcester, Worcestershire is the primary topic. And for readers who do not type in "Worcester, Worcestershire", they can find the Worcester they are looking for on the dab page. However, these readers do not seem to make up the majority of "Worcester" seekers. What about the readers who are looking for Worcester, Massachusetts when typing in "Worcester"? The hatnote would only be acceptable if Worcester, UK was the primary topic for "Worcester", but it isn't. As such, a dab page makes much more sense. -- Rai•me 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not "stating that Worcester, Worcestershire is the primary topic" by opposing the move. That is a complete misunderstanding. See below (as I don't want to split the discussion). --RFBailey (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If as you state below that 'I agree that there isn't a clear primary or secondary topic' how can you oppose this? Your oppose seems to be totally against policy and fact. If there is not primary topic then the dab page has to be at the name space. To argue otherwise seems to be completely without logic and contrary to policy and guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, The current name is as in naming conventions for placenames. Why go against that convention?Iccaldwell (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  No, the current situations is actually against the naming conventions. The guidelines for UK cities states that a settlement should only be located at [[placename]] if disambiguation is not needed. Here, it is. "Worcester" should only be located at the UK city if that city is the clear primary topic among readers, and it isn't. To not move the page is against naming conventions. -- Rai•me 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  The convention you are using to justify not moving this is for when there the place is the primary topic. It is and never was intended to circumvent the primary use requirement for what is at the main name space. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with RFBailey and Iccaldwell on this one. Knepflerle (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. havn't we had this before? G-Man ^? 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - If Worcester, MA was the capital of the state then I would agree to a move but it is just a city with no special status. Worcester, UK, one of England's most historic cities, came first and Worcester, MA was named after the English city so it should stay put. Also Worcester, UK is the admin HQ of Worcestershire, the equivilant of a state capital in many people's eyes. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  Whether it has a "special status" or not has nothing to do with naming conventions; similarly, a place's status as a historic site, the fact that a place was named after another, and whether or not a place is a "capital" are all irrelevant. All that matters is what readers are looking for, and since the UK city and the US city get very similar number of readers, a dab page makes sense; "Worcester" should only be located at the UK city if that city is the clear primary topic among readers, and it isn't. -- Rai•me 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: per RFBailey and G-Man. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Boston and London each has one clearly primary meaning, so those titles take the reader to particular cities (in the U.S. and the U.K., respectively), with a hatnote link to the dab page. By contrast, Worcester is like Lancaster -- no one location with that name is primary, so the title should be a dab page. The naming convention about how to title articles about locations in England don't override the general rule for disambiguation. (By the way, anyone interested can read a very detailed discussion of the analogous dispute at Talk:Lancaster.) JamesMLane t c 01:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. "Worcester" has no clear primary usage. "Worcester" being the first choice naming convention for Worcester, UK doesn't change this.--Loodog (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Worcester, Massachusetts can not be named Worcester, per WP:NC (in the U.S. a city has to listed in the AP style guide to not have the state specified), so there can never be any conflict with Worcester, England being named Worcester. It is always best to use the shortest name given two choices. There is not a big enough difference in page views to make it worth renaming Worcester (it is less than 2-1) just so that everyone looking for Worcester, Massachusetts would have to go through a disambig page to get there instead of going through Worcester if that is what they typed into the search box. In either case they get there in the same number of clicks (one), because there is a direct link to WoMa at the top of this page. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The fact that the ratio is at all comparable only makes the case for a disambig as there is no clear primary usage. An alternative meaning for "Worcester" doesn't have to be eligible to be located at "Worcester".--Loodog (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. When considering other names, one first only has to consider other articles which could have the same name to determine primary usage. If the ratio of articles that could have the same name is greater than say 2-1 then primary usage lets you use that name. There are no guidelines for what establishes primary usage. I would say that if there was more than 20% more than any other you could keep an already existing name, if there was more than 2-1 than any other you could usurp a name unless historical or other considerations dictated otherwise. In this case the only other city that could be named Worcester gets many many times less views (18-1). 199.125.109.81 (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Worcester, US article gets 50% more traffic, which exceeds your 20%.

As for only articles eligible to be list at a name to be the only competitors, I suggest you look at myriad examples in wikipedia where the basecase directs to something that isn't located at the basecase name, like for example Oh, snap or car. Or look at a dab page where none of the articles are located at the basecase such as: hot.

Readers don't search for an article by naming conventions; they search by usage. Naming conventions tell us where to physically put the article when possible, but say nothing about what to do for search terms. This is why the priority of the basecase's direction is what "basecase" could mean, not what could be "legally" found there.--Loodog (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Worcester, England is probably older than WoMa and therefore has a historical claim. 50% is not in my opinion a high enough ratio to change a primary usage. So for example if someone built a resort on the moon or in Tahiti and called it Worcester, and it started getting more page views than Worcester, England, a lot more, 90% more, that would still not be more than 2-1 and not enough to take a name away. If it got more than 100% more, that is more than double, then you could start thinking about using it, but you would probably wait until it was more overwhelming, like 3-1 or 5-1 and even then you could invoke the historical factor. However, if you did change it to the resort because of the page views being more than 2-1 you would not change it back just because the page views dropped one month or even continually to 90% or 70% or even 30% - see I think there should be a built in hysteresis effect so that it was harder to establish primary usage but easier to keep it once you have it, by using a 2-1 criteria to get it and using 20% (1.2-1) to keep primary usage. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument by the proponents appears to be that neither is a primary topic so the unqualified name should be a disambiguation page. Are you claiming that the city in England is the primary topic associated with this word? Does it qualify for your more than 2 to 1 page view criteria? --Polaron | Talk 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Among other pages that could have the same name it qualifies because it has an 18-1 ratio. Between a redirect to Worcester, MA it has historical precedence, and Worcester, MA does not have enough hits to qualify as a redirect. Using Worcester, UK as a dab for Worcester, MA is functionally equivalent to using Worcester as a disambiguation page, which would help no one. It is much better to use Worcester as something than to use it as nothing. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Point 1 above: historical precedence is rendered moot by the whole Boston argument. Notability is determined irrespective of historical precedence.--Loodog (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Boston has already been demonstrated to not be analagous to Worcester. --RFBailey (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Boston is analogous to Worcester here in the sense that the older city with the longer history does not automatically equate to it being the primary topic. -- Rai•me 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to the anon's argument above ("It is much better to use Worcester as something than to use it as nothing."), that's not Wikipedia policy. If it were, Mercury would be "something" (the planet or the element or the god) rather than "nothing" (the dab page). Worcester is like Mercury in that there's no one clearly predominant meaning, so it should be a dab page. By the way, a dab page isn't "nothing". Some readers looking for the U.K. city and some looking for the U.S. city may be enriched if, on their way there, they pass through a dab page that gives a precis of other meanings. JamesMLane t c 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The dilemma here seems to be the population and traffic factors. However, these shouldn't be considered major catalysts. I live on the West Coast (U.S.) and wasn't aware of the existence of the Massachusetts Worcester until now. I do however know the English Worcester as the city in which the famous sauce originates and the home of Worcester cathedral. It seems as if the Masssachusetts Worcester dosn't show any more notability over the orignial Worcester besides population (which may be a catalyst in the many more hits considering people looking for their home town). Nevertheless, population is not a prime factor, especially when the American city is no more notable. The status quo is fine. 66.121.215.213 (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you mean "support". Keep in mind this is NOT a proposal to have Worcester, US takeover the base case. This is a proposal to favor neither by directing to a dab. "No more notable" is an argument for a dab page, not the status quo.--Loodog (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How does "The status quo is fine" translate into "support", exactly? Please don't twist other users' arguments to suit your own POV. --RFBailey (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Read what anon says. I could be wrong, but it seems to me he was voting against a move of Worcester, Massachusetts -> Worcester, which is not what's being proposed. I assume he'll come back and answer.--Loodog (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. I am not in the delusion that Worcester, Massachusetts is going to be moved to Worcester as you have so maliciously fabricated. And how that makes me support the move, I cannot understand. Please refrain from such unorthodox manipulations. 66.121.215.213 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"American city is no more notable." "Masssachusetts Worcester dosn't show any more notability over the orignial Worcester". What you did not say was "Worcester, UK is clearly more notable". If you believe neither to be significantly more notable, a dab page is the result. Otherwise you´re saying "neither is more notable so let´s direct to one of them," which doesn´t make sense. It´s as simple as that; I´m not "maliciously fabricating" (WP:CIVIL WP:AGF WP:DICK) anything.--Loodog (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop being a dick with your manipulation. Because I said that the Massachusetts Worcester isn't any more notable than the original Worcester, doesn't mean that I said that the oiginal Worcester isn't as notable. I had also stated that living in America, I have never heard of the American Worcester but I have heard of the original Worcester. So, no. Stop lying and saying that I am implying that neither is more notable and telling me that I don't mak sense. A classic example of a straw man. Take your own advice and don't be incivil because you were maliciously fabicating to suit your bias. 66.121.215.213 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Loodog was not being a dick, and was certainly not being uncivil. It is you who are being uncivil by twisting a misunderstanding into "malicious fabrication", and accusing another user of lying and being a straw man. The bottom line is, your answer does not have any basis in policy. Whether you heard of Worcester, MA or not does not make it more or less notable, and actually notability doesn't even play a role here. Worcester, UK should only be at "Worcester" if it is the clear, unambiguous primary topic, and it clearly isn't. -- Rai•me 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Loodog was being a dick and certainly being uncivil. I clearly represented my opposition to the move and he clearly and maliciously fabicated the claim that I shold have supported the move based on my argument. Unless you now what a straw man is, you shouln't address who is using it. The bottom line is that my answer clearly represents the argument as to why the status quo should be retained. But I can see you ae following suit with Loodog by accusing me of being incivil when you and Loodog should take your own advice. If you want to make a point, don't fabricate a straw man against me to suit you bias. 66.121.215.213 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your opposition to the move was clear in that it said "oppose", but its reasoning was confused and unclear (you seem to be the only one who disagrees), and that is why Loodog misunderstood. There was nothing malicious about it. Your argument was not clear, and it wasn't based in policy. Accusing someone of being incivil does not make the accuser incicvil; twisting a minterpretation into a "malicious fabrication" and labeling someone as a liar and a straw man does. Please read WP:CIVIL. -- Rai•me 20:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. Did you not see RFBailey's post as he quoted 'How does "The status quo is fine" translate into "support", exactly?'? It was most certainly malicious to say that I meant support after I clearly stated that the status quo is fine. My argument was clear and was reflected in policy. Twisting someone's words to suit their bias and attacking those words (hence a straw man) is a lie. Then using an ad hominem against them for pointing out the straw man, especially when it suits one's bias is most certainly incivil and unethical. (It seems that you yourself have a habit of this manipulation judging by your comment to RFBailey's opposition.) Please take your own advice and read WP:CIVIL. 66.121.215.213 (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop this arguing about civility? It's not helping anyone, least of all you, and is a distraction from what we're supposed to be talking about. --RFBailey (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you take your own advice about civility? You were the one who brought it up and its really unhelpful and digresses from the subject matter. 66.121.215.213 (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not fabricating, and not maliciously, certainly manipluating: interpreting an "oppose" as a "support" seems very bizarre (even if the reasoning behind the oppose was confused). --RFBailey (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support If there is no primary topic, then the unqualified name should be a disambiguation page. Unless, someone can show that the city in England is the predominant usage of the word, there is no reason for it to occupy the unqualified namespace. --Polaron | Talk 16:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly 'no more notable' implies that there is no primary topic so supping the status quo seems confusing since that implies that there is a primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. There is no obvious primary topic and the naming conventions cited by opposers do not in any way mandate that English cities should not be disambiguated where appropriate. And unlike London or Boston, this is clearly a case where generic disambiguation is appropriate. And while I oppose the use of Wikipedia:Web statistics tool to assert that one topic is the primary topic, I think it is of value to demonstrate when an article claimed to be primary is in fact not so primary. older ≠ wiser 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support. Clearly at best there is no primary topic and at worst the primary topic is the US city. Disambiguation is clearly preferred in these cases. Without a clear cut consensus on a primary topic there clearly is no primary topic so the proposed moves must happen. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Must happen??? Opposition to the move is running 8 oppose-6 support right now. Clearly no consensus, and therefore the article should keep the same name. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it probably won't happen, but it should; the current situation is a violation of naming conventions policy. -- Rai•me 03:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember also wikipedia is not a democracy. The purpose of this isn´t a vote.--Loodog (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, must happen. While a larger number of editors are opposed, that does not mean the proposal should not happen. I don't believe that any of the oppose opinions make a strong case the the British city being the primary use. Oldest clearly is not a determination of primary use. Also remember that the way the notice is posted for these discussions, guarantees that article editors are notified but other interested editors are not. This is a built in bias to not move. I'm sure that if a notice was posted to the MA article, there would be more support, but then that might be construed as improper. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose At first I was leaning toward support, but I changed my mind. People searching for all but the most notable cities are likely to use the state name. For the few who would not, the disambiguation links at the top of this article are sufficient. I understand the arguments of the support crowd, but I don't believe there is likely to be any confusion. -Rrius (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that your argument would stand up. The only city I know of with that name is the one in MA. I suspect that the vast majority of readers don't realize how many places share names so a dab at the primary name space makes a lot of sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The dab is still there if all that someone wants to find out is how many Worcester's there are. This really doesn't make a lot of sense, for example to have a dab at London, instead of a link to a dab at London, just so that everyone is forced to see how many other London's there are. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But the article at London is the primary topic for that term, which is not the case here. Do you believe Mercury should be changed so that it refers to one of the things named mercury rather than a dab page? --Polaron | Talk 16:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The main Worcester is in da UK. Never even heard of Worcester in da USA. Keep dis article where it is init. Everyone is right on here about dem naming conventions, this article should not be moved. Peace out. xx Britney Babez xx (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Right now, people who search for "Worcester" get Worcester, Worcestershire and people who want Worcester, MA would need to do a single click. If you do this move, then people who search for "Worcester" would have to do another click regardless of whether they're looking for Worcester, Worcestershire or Worcester, MA - i.e., you're punishing people looking for Worcester, Worcestershire while not helping people looking for Worcester, MA. Everyone would lose. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Whenever a plausible search term goes to a dab page instead of to one of the articles, it oculd be said that we are "punishing" people looking for a specific article. Nevertheless, Wikipedia policy says that a term should go to a dab page where there's no clearly predominant meaning. That policy is currently applied in thousands of cases. Are you urging a change in the general policy, so that no term like Run would ever go to a dab page? or do you agree with the general policy, but see a reason that it's somehow not applicable here? JamesMLane t c 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Can I just say that comparing Run and Worcester is utterly ridiculous. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 02:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Why? The cases are similar in that there is no primary topic. The reasoning behind Wknight94's oppose was that people "lose" when they go to dab pages. If that is going to be a suitable argument for Worcester, then it needs to apply in all cases that currently use dab pages. The bottom line is, one could easily say that readers searching for Worcester, MA are being punished when they are redirected to an article about a town in the UK and not to a dab page. This is why Wikipedia has dab pages to begin with; to aid in readers' searches. Readers do not "lose", as they are not directed to something that is not a primary topic. -- Rai•me 02:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
        • For a start, Worcester is not a town in the UK, it's a city and one of the United Kingdom's oldest cities gaining the status in 1189. Worcester, UK was a city long before Worcester, MA was even settled. Worcester, UK is the primary topic here as it is one of the oldest cities in the world so much more important than some minor city nobody has heard of in MA. The arguement about traffic is irrelivent as the US is more populated than the UK so it is obviously going to have higher traffic. You can't say that just because the UK is a smaller country then the US minor city should take precedent over the article name when our city is much more historically important. The link at the top of this article is perfectly adequate and moving the dab page here would not reduce the number of clicks, infact it will slow people down as they read the long list of places trying to find Worcester, MA. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 02:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
          • • "US is more populated than the UK so it is obviously going to have higher traffic." That's also the reason Boston, Massachusetts gets more hits than Boston, Lincolnshire, and it's pretty damn valid there. The point is neither population, hits, nor history determine what "Worcester" should go to. The key word is notability, which is affected by population, hits, and history, all in varying degrees in varying cases. This is not a one-point notability argument and it's only counterproductive when people try to make it one.--Loodog (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) My mistake about the city. But, the rest of your argument has absolutely no basis in policy. The fact that Worcester, UK is an old city does not make it the primary topic. The fact that it is one of the oldest cities in the world does not make it the primary topic. so much more important than some minor city nobody has heard of in MA. Well, that is your biased opinion. One editor posted above that he/she had only heard of the MA Worcester, so that presents a major flaw in your analysis. The arguement about traffic is irrelivent as the US is more populated than the UK so it is obviously going to have higher traffic. I honestly can't believe that you will admit this, and yet still argue that Worcester, UK is the primary topic. How can it be? It gets less readers. That is the only thing that defines a primary topic: what readers expect to find when they type in "Worcester". So the argument is far from irrelevant. If it isn't the Worcester in the UK, then that city should not be located at "Worcester". You can't say that just because the UK is a smaller country then the US minor city should take precedent over the article name when our city is much more historically important. Again and again I repeat: historical importance has absolutely no basis in Wikipedia's naming conventions. So that argument is irrelevant. The link at the top of this article is perfectly adequate and moving the dab page here would not reduce the number of clicks, infact it will slow people down as they read the long list of places trying to find Worcester, MA. I couldn't disagree more, but if you believe this then you should take this argument elsewhere, as dab pages for topics that have no one primary article are currently Wikipedia policy. By your argument, perhaps it would be suitable to redirect "Worcester" to Worcester, Massachusetts, with a dab link to the UK Worcester? As Vegaswikian stated above, Worcester, MA is at worst the primary topic here over Worcester, UK, as it gets 50% more readers. -- Rai•me 03:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
              • You are an American, you obviously have a strong bias towards your small city. This whole project is often very biased towards America even though it is supposed to be an international project, I'm talking mainly about which spellings to use here. Traffic is not a deciding factor on which page goes where, that is your opinion and with the clear no consensus appearing it is not one which agrees with everybody. I am from Britain and I have never heard of Worcester, MA so how can that be the primary topic? Outside of the US I would not think it is a hugely well-known city as it has given nothing to the world. Worcester, UK has given the world the lovely Worcestershire Sauce, I know that is not a reason for the article staying but it shows that many people outside of the US believe our Worcester to be more important. It seems almost like you are saying the page should be moved just because Worcester, MA is in the US as if the US is the centre of the world. Being in America does not make it a primary topic as your tone suggests. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 03:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
                • I think you're misunderstanding the reason proposed for the move, which is that neither of the two is the predominant meaning of the word if one takes the entire English-speaking world as a whole. No one is claiming that the US city is more notable. See Syracuse for an analogous situation. --Polaron | Talk 03:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • The comment "Worcester, MA is at worst the primary topic here over Worcester, UK, as it gets 50% more readers." is what I'm referring to when I say it is not the primary topic so I am not misunderstanding anything. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 03:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • Also notice the "at worst", and the fact that I was quoting another editor. You are clearly misunderstanding and/or attempting to twist my comment around. I am not saying it is the primary topic; I am saying there is no primary topic. I find it strange that you are shelling out accusations of bias, but that opposing this move in itself because your own opinions that Worcester, UK is the primary topic here as it is one of the oldest cities in the world so much more important than some minor city nobody has heard of in MA. The arguement about traffic is irrelivent... The only thing that matters here is article readership, and yet you are calling it "irrelevant". I am from Britain and I have never heard of Worcester, MA so how can that be the primary topic? Primary topics are not determined by what you have and haven't heard of. The MA city article gets more readers, 50% more, and while that doesn't make it the primary topic, it certainly shows that Worcteser, UK isn't. It seems almost like you are saying the page should be moved just because Worcester, MA is in the US as if the US is the centre of the world. Being in America does not make it a primary topic as your tone suggests. No, this is not what I am saying at all. Again, you are twisting my comment around. Not discriminating against the US is not the same as discriminating against everywhere else. What you are saying is that Worcester, UK is older, and you think it better, so who cares what the primary topic is? We should redirect readers to the article about the topic that is historically superior. Well, that is against Wikipedia policy, and is certainly a UK bias. -- Rai•me 11:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • Joshii, don't confuse a reductio ad absurdum for an advocation of the absurd. If we argue that Worcester, UK should be the primary topic to save clicks for somebody, then we could just as easily argue to make Worcester, US the primary topic to save clicks. Therefore, neither should be.--Loodog (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• To respond to the initial question way up there, I am a big believer in Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment. If I searched for "Run" and got a disambiguation page, I wouldn't be astonished since it's just a word and has multiple meanings. (Although I also wouldn't be astonished if Run redirected to Running - I might even support that move request). Similarly, if I search for "Worcester", and Worcester, UK came up, I wouldn't find that astonishing at all, both because the other Worcesters are named after the UK one (or I assume so) and because many of the non-US cities don't have a qualifier in their title. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I was surprised to find this page when I first typed in "Worcester".--Loodog (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I was equally suprised to find this move request when I visited the Worcester article. It appears Wikipedia is full of suprises. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 03:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• And I was even more surprised to find your equal surprise to the move request.:)--Loodog (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wknight94, I mentioned Run only for the sake of variety in my examples. A much closer analogy is Lancaster, where the analogous question was discussed at length (resulting in Lancaster being a dab page). Syracuse and Rochester are also dab pages. Many readers would probably be surprised to find that Worcester is treated differently. As for Joshii's unsupported assertion that Worcester, MA "has given nothing to the world", it was, among other things, where Robert Goddard developed the first successful liquid-fueled rocket. There may be a few readers who think space travel is almost as important as Worcestershire sauce. More to the point, though, is that different editors commenting here will have heard of different things, with most of them being more likely to know about a place in their own country. Those individual reactions don't establish a clear primary meaning. JamesMLane t c 09:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, at a quick glance, I don't agree with one or two of those examples and would support a move away from the dab pages. As for the other's argument of Worcester, MA giving nothing to the world, that's just absurd and unhelpful. To give my nationalistic angle, I'm from New York and honestly didn't even know there was a Worcester, NY... —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• This all arose from your comment that having a search term go to a dab page constituted "punishing" some readers without "rewarding" others. If there's even one of those examples that you do agree should be a dab page, then the same thing would occur. In other words, I think your original comment was inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and with good practice. But thanks for sticking up for Worcester, MA against the charge of having given nothing to the world! JamesMLane t c 23:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the point about Worcester(shire) Sauce is that it has "Worcester" in the name. If, as a result of the first rocket launch having taken place there, we referred to such things as "Worcester Rockets", then there would be a suitable analogy. Also, perhaps "punishing" is too strong a word: "inconveniencing" would probably have been more appropriate. --RFBailey (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about the sauce would apply directly only to the article about the county, Worcestershire. Yes, within Worcestershire, it was specifically the city of Worcester where the sauce was created, and that is indeed one indicium of that city's notability, but the birth of rocketry is one indicium of the American Worcester's notability.

Changing "punishing" to "inconveniencing" doesn't affect the basic problem with the underlying argument: It contravenes a Wikipedia policy that's been adopted by community consensus. The policy is that, when there's no clearly predominant meaning for a term, it should go to a dab page. Consider Mercury. Right now, it's a dab page. Thus, if you think that being taken to a dab page is a punishment or an inconvenience, readers who want the planet or the element or the god are all being punished or inconvenienced. The supporters of moving Worcester keep pointing out this general policy and in response we keep hearing about sauce. JamesMLane t c 00:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, folks. One step back. RFBailey, what, in your opinion, is the primary meaning for "Worcester"?--Loodog (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear. There are two similarly-notable cities (in Worcestershire and Massachusetts). In terms of size, while the one in Mass. is larger, when taken in proportion to the UK and US populations, they are comparable. Likewise, the article traffic is of the same order of magnitude for both. However, I would venture that the one in the UK has a slight edge in notability, as: (i) it is the original source of the name, for which all others are named; (ii) it is one of the most historic cities in the UK, with its cathedral, and events such as the 1642 Battle of Worcester; (iii) it has some internationally-known products named after it (the sauce, and Royal Worcester pottery), which mean its name is known beyond the UK; (iv) (more tenuously) as a sporting venue, the presence in the city of Worcestershire County Cricket Club mean that it is known in cricket-playing countries (e.g. India, Australia).

None of this is to say that nothing significant has ever happened in Worcester, MA (this would clearly suggest otherwise); however, those events haven't necessarily taken the name "Worcester" to a wider audience, at least not outside the US.

That this is such a borderline case as far as notability is concerned, combined with the fact that the default article titles for each city do not conflict with each other, the principle of least astonishment, and the presence of the hatnote at the top of the Worcester article, suggests to me there should be no problem the status quo. --RFBailey (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you're stating that Worcester, UK is the primary usage of "Worcester"?--Loodog (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it's borderline. I would prefer to draw attention to the non-conflicting default titles, least astonishment and hatnote (leading to the same number of clicks required). --RFBailey (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYUSAGE: "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other, then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. "

Something particularly apropos here: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no '(disambiguation)'." I would accept "Worcester" directing here, if you were willing to state and argue that Worcester, UK is the "well known primary meaning".--Loodog (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And with some sources to back that up. A baseless claim is of no value. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

<=Hasn't this goose been cooked long enough? The longer we wait the more opposition we get. Now it's 11 oppose - 6 support (counting Knepflerle as oppose). To me the most cogent argument is the last vote "If you do this move, then people who search for "Worcester" would have to do another click regardless of whether they're looking for Worcester, Worcestershire or Worcester, MA - i.e., you're punishing people looking for Worcester, Worcestershire while not helping people looking for Worcester, MA. Everyone would lose." 199.125.109.57 (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

<=The number-of-clicks argument has been made before and again, it has no basis in policy.--Loodog (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

However taking a significant number of readers to the wrong page is against policy. And that may well be the real argument and not simply the number of clicks. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The number-of-clicks argument is being used as an inapplicable stand-in for wikipedia direction policy, which does, actually, allow for basecases to go to dab pages, as in countless examples, even though it "punishes" all usages.--Loodog (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As a reminder, this is not a vote but a survey. The closer is suppose to weigh the strength of the arguments and not just count numbers. So, while unlikely, a proposal with only one very strong case could win out over a large number of weak opposing opinions. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I really don't think it's necessary to give instructions on how to evaluate an RM. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

The same pair of editors, User:Loodog and User:Raime, have come here and are trying to force this issue their preferred way, just as they tried and failed to do last year. There was no consensus to change the status quo the, so I fail to see what will be different last time. Oh, and many of the irrelevant arguments that Raime refers to were actually put forward by him, so kettle is calling pot black there. --RFBailey (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we are following policy. It is you who is trying to force "Worcester" to be located here against policy, using arguments of "your argument about statistics doesn't prove anything" and "the new name would look silly". There is no limit to the amount of move requests that a page can have; by your logic, should discussions never be reopened on any issue? The difference is, the last request (completely due to my own inexperience) was carried out improperly, as it was never listed at WP:RM, and also that this request, unlike the other, provides valid reasoning on how the current situation is in clear violation of naming conventions. And I never stated that the irrelevant arguments were not added by me. I will gladly admit that I added many of the arguments, many of which were regrettably petty and in bad taste, but that since then I have grown as an editor and learned much more about Wikipedia policy. I now realize that they were all irrelevant to the matter at hand. -- Rai•me 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to force anything; I just think it's backwards to deliberately direct someone who types "Worcester" to the less common result. It's much less disorienting and more true to WP intentions to have it go to a dab.--Loodog (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The hatnote at the top of the Worcester article provides a direct link to Worcester, MA, so you can get to it with the same number of clicks as you would if it were a disambiguation page. --RFBailey (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I concede that point. It's a matter of the fact that it's disorienting if we do it that way when there's a better alternative. It seems to me the link to the US Worcester at the top of this page is 1) a concession that Worcester, US is order-of-magnitude as notable as Worcester, UK, and 2) a false compromise. If we really believed the present setup to be correct and functional, only the disambig link would exist and the link to Worcester, US wouldn't be there at all.--Loodog (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote dab links are appropriate to use when there is a clear primary topic and a clear secondary topic. Here, it is hard to label Worcester, MA as a secondary topic when it gets 5,000 more readers than the supposed primary topic. Why should readers searching for Worcester, MA when typing in "Worcester" have to go through an article about a different topic that they were not seeking? A dab page is the best solution, even if it does equate to the same number of clicks. -- Rai•me 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In this situation, I agree that there isn't a clear primary or secondary topic (despite Raime seeming not to believe this). However, the situation we have at present has the UK Worcester where UK (and other) readers would expect to find it, and Worcester, MA where US (and other) readers would expect to find it (given the naming conventions on US placenames). The hatnote provides a quick link to the other one, and readers don't "have to go through an article about a different topic ", the link is right at the top of the page. It's not as if it's a "See also" link right at the end, buried amongst all sorts of other stuff. This is already functional, doesn't seem to upset anyone (at least, upset them enough to complain about it on the talk page) other than the two of you, and I believe is an acceptable compromise, not a false one. --RFBailey (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you do not believe that there is a primary topic, then the only correct solution per policy would be a dab page. The only reason Worcester, UK should be located at "Worcester" would be if it was the primary topic for "Worcester". The current situation is not acceptable, as not all readers would expect to find the UK city at "Worcester". Given your logic, should Boston, Lincolnshire also be located at "Boston", since per current guidelines the US city should be at Boston, Massachusetts? No. Or take, Rochester, an example where a dab page is already in use. Should Rochester, Kent be located at "Rochester", as the New York city needs to have the state name added per guidelines? Also no; where there is ambiguity involved, a dab page should be used. Since the UK city is not the primary topic for "Worcester", which no longer seems to be in question, it should not be located at "Worcester". Whether you see this or not, readers do have to go through another article that they were not intending to go to. Whether or not it is easy to get to the right article is not the point; readers should not bbe directed to the wrong article. And you seem to missing the fact that Loodog and I are not at all the only two editors who believe this is a false compromise - see Talk:Worcester, Massachusetts#Should Worcester be a disambig? and the complaints at Talk:Worcester (disambiguation). You are only looking at this page. -- Rai•me 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) To address your points, in order:

1. Quote: "If you do not believe that there is a primary topic, then the only correct solution per policy would be a dab page." No, that is not the only correct solution per policy, as I have attempted to explain, and as you consistently seem to have failed to understand.
2. Boston: (i) in that case there clearly is a primary topic, as even the residents of Boston, Lincolnshire would probably concede; (ii) according to the naming conventions for cities in the USA,

   Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may be listed at [[City]] if they are the primary topic for that name. Cities that meet these criteria are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle. No other city should be listed at [[City]].

   so therefore Boston, MA should rightly be at Boston.
3. Rochester: I would not object if the town in Kent was listed just at "Rochester", for reasons analogous to those given here, although in that instance there are other places called Rochester in the UK.
4. "Wrong article": that's your opinion. It appears that you are arguing about this on principle, not for any practical reason. The whole purpose of disambiguation pages is to make it easy to get to the right article.
5. Discussions on other pages: the ones you point to are old discussions, from months up to years ago. The only recent contribution to either of them was you [1] (apart from the pointers to this discussion that I've just put there). I am not "only looking at this page": how can you tell which articles I'm reading anyway?

--RFBailey (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bailey, I understand your point that the first choice conventions on both Worcester, US, and Worcester, UK would put them in non-conflicting places. This is different because the basecase, "Worcester" is already taken by the need for a DAB. See also: Portland, San José, or San Juan in which first choice conventions are overrided by the need for a DAB.--Loodog (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't address me as "Bailey" (unless you want me to address you as "dog"). In the cases you cited, I'm surprised that Portland is a disambiguation page, as I would have thought that Portland, Oregon would be the primary topic (so the "city, state" naming convention would suggest that Portland would redirect there). In the cases of San José and San Juan, the fact that they are saints' names, not to mention the sheer number of places named after them, creates a confusion as to what the primary topic is (especially in the case of San Jose, where one is the capital city of a country, while the largest example is in an English-speaking country). So in those two cases, the need for a disambiguation page should obviously come first. It's not as obvious here. --RFBailey (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Granted not as obvious, but still existent.--Loodog (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A reply to the points raised above by RFBailey:

• No, that is not the only correct solution per policy, as I have attempted to explain, and as you consistently seem to have failed to understand. No, I do not "fail" to understand at all; I get what you saying, what you seem to be missing is that is has no basis in policy. As older ≠ wiser stated above, "there is no obvious primary topic and the naming conventions cited by opposers do not in any way mandate that English cities should not be disambiguated where appropriate." You seem to be missing the portion of the guidelines of naming UK settlements that states "Where possible..." - if the UK city is not the primary topic for "Worcester", then there is absolutely no reason it should be located at "Worcester".
• I concede, you are correct on Boston. But moving Rochester, or Lancaster, or any of the other city names that have no primary topic to the UK municipality would be against Wikipedia policy, although you "consistently seem to fail to understand" this.
• No, "wrong article" is not my opinion. If a reader types in "Worcester" expecting to be redirected to the article about Worcester, MA, but is instead brought to an article about Worcester, UK, he or she has been brought to the wrong article - an article they were not intending to see. This is why we have dab pages.
• What difference does it make whether they were comments left months ago? The point is that there have been complaints by users long before Loodog and I began this move request, and before I began the last move request. You stated: This is already functional, doesn't seem to upset anyone (at least, upset them enough to complain about it on the talk page) other than the two of you. Clearly, this is incorrect; discussions on this have gone back as far as 2005. I obviously cannot see what pages you check, but I assumed that if you had checked those pages you would not miss those other user's comments. -- Rai•me 19:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A comment to the closer. The strength of the arguments here clearly need to be considered in this closing. If you consider the strength of the arguments, the counter arguments and the responses, it would appear that this can not be closed as no consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Only consensus seems to be:

• Cities are commensurably notable.

The argument is what to do with that fact, i.e. whether nonconflicting location guidelines override alleged conflicting usage guidelines on the "Worcester".--Loodog (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I do have to say that with Worcester, UK becoming a city in 1189 it does have a huge historical claim to the name - it would be like saying oh we need to make Babylon or Jerusalem or Jericho into a dab just because there are other locations with that name, none of which are at all likely. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Then, Boston, Lincolnshire has an even larger historical claim (654AD) on Boston, Massachusetts.--Loodog (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a chance - that's a town, not a city, and one that almost no one has heard of. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you for conceding: notability matters irrespective of historical claim.--Loodog (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidently unless you live in a nearby state, Worcester, Massachusetts has very little notability, so I'm not sure I see your point. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

<=Your point: Historic claim means Worcester, UK dominates My point: Boston is counterexample of your point of historic claim Your point: But that's an example of one city where nobody's heard of the lesser My point: Then you concede that more matters than historical claim.--Loodog (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, my point is that I think you are beating a dead horse, again. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of clicks is not a dead horse?--Loodog (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment; Worcester should be the dab page for all the places called Worcester. I understand that the policy is that where there is no general agreement about which page is the primary topic, a dab page should hold that place. I guess that the discussion has gone on long enough to indicate that there is no overall consensus or agreement here. Snowman (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is disputing which is the primary topic. All of the disputes center around how to interpret that policy - of the articles that could be named Worcester, this one is clearly the primary topic. Of articles that could not be named Worcester and this one, one has slightly more page views than this one, but not enough to change the status quo, especially because it would just make the encyclopedia harder to use, not easier to use. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If we all agree there's no primary usage, WP:PRIMARYUSAGE is pretty clear. There's not much to debate.--Loodog (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

199.125.109.57, the policy is very clear: if there is no primary usage, a dab page should be used. The argument of of the articles that could be named Worcester has no merit; there are no distinctions made between articles that need to have and do need to have a ", STATE" (or any higher entity) modifier when it comes to determining a primary topic for a city name. Otherwise, cities like Rochester, Kent and Lancaster, Lancashire would not need to be disambiguated. The bottom line is that a large number of readers will be typing in "Worcester" expecting to fing Worcester, MA, even though per naming conventions Worcester, MA needs to have the ", Massachusetts" in its article title. That is why Worcester, UK should not be located at "Worcester". The fact that Worcester, MA has more readers at all shows that Worcester, UK is not the primary topic; thus, the status quo must change. Even though one could argue that directing readers to any dab pages makes the encyclopedia harder to use, it is policy to do so when there is no primary topic. -- Rai•me 19:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.